Skip to main content
Glama
sanjaypsachdev

OpenShift MCP Server

oc_delete

Safely delete OpenShift resources with dry-run, confirmation, and cascade options. Avoid accidental deletions through validation and error handling.

Instructions

Delete OpenShift resources with comprehensive safety checks, validation, and error handling

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoDelete all resources of the specified type
urlNoURL to YAML manifest defining resources to delete
nameNoName of the resource to delete
waitNoWait for deletion to complete
forceNoForce deletion (bypass finalizers)
dryRunNoShow what would be deleted without actually deleting
cascadeNoDeletion cascade strategybackground
confirmNoRequire explicit confirmation for destructive operations
contextNoOpenShift context to use (optional)
timeoutNoTimeout for deletion operation (e.g., "60s", "5m")
filenameNoPath to YAML file to delete resources from
manifestNoYAML manifest defining resources to delete
ignore404NoIgnore 404 errors if resource does not exist
namespaceNoOpenShift namespace/projectdefault
recursiveNoProcess directory recursively
resourceTypeNoType of resource to delete (required if not using manifest/filename)
allNamespacesNoDelete resources across all namespaces
fieldSelectorNoDelete resources matching field selector
labelSelectorNoDelete resources matching label selector
gracePeriodSecondsNoGrace period for deletion in seconds
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive safety checks, validation, and error handling' but these are vague and unsubstantiated. It doesn't disclose specific behaviors like confirmation prompts, dry-run capabilities, or destructive consequences, which is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Delete OpenShift resources') and avoids redundancy. The additional phrase 'with comprehensive safety checks, validation, and error handling' is generic but does not bloat the description excessively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't explain when deletion occurs, what safety mechanisms exist, how to choose between manifest/name/selector based deletion, or what the expected results are. This inadequacy could lead to misuse.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 20 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain them. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('OpenShift resources'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like oc_create, oc_apply, and oc_get, which handle different lifecycle operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for deleting resources but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It doesn't mention scenarios like manifest-based deletion vs. inline resource selection, leaving the when-to-use context underdeveloped.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sanjaypsachdev/mcp-server-openshift'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server